The central concern of this paper is the struggle by newly appointed auditors for legitimacy in adiscretionary assurance space. In these domains, auditors are unable to rely on their traditionalstate-backed monopoly of financial audit. This paper examines efforts to establish jurisdiction byparties positioned in new assurance roles. This involved negotiating a complex and challengingterrain comprising clubs seeking to push their own interests and mistrust about the proprietary ofrival club’s practices and bona fides. The authors highlight practical coping mechanismsemployed to boost the legitimacy of the new audit functions.

As the emerging vistas of auditing in the 21st century become more diverse and far-reachingthan ever, the movement of assurance beyond the traditional boundaries of the financial auditraises important questions about the extent to which conventional audit concepts can travel tonew fields, as well as the receptivity of new fields to purveyors of new assurance services.Recognizing a growing interest in auditing and assurance in new audit spaces, the authors aim toinvestigate efforts by auditors to establish jurisdiction in new audit spaces through two in-depthfield studies of the positioning of salary cap auditors in the National Rugby League (NRL) inAustralia and Canadian Football League (CFL) in Canada. The salary cap auditor in each leaguehas established himself as a respected and widely recognized figure that has been increasinglyinvoked as a symbol of fair-play and propriety by leaders.

Design/Method/ Approach:

The authors employed a comparative case study design of the role of the salary cap auditor intwo high-profile professional sports leagues – the NRL in Australia and the CFL in Canada.They investigate these issues through an in-depth review of archival sources and 18 interviewswith key stakeholders in the NRL and CFL salary cap. The evidence was gathered prior to 2014.

Findings:

In these cases, at the intersection of the fields of accounting and football, the authors identify anumber of legitimating strategies employed in order to build symbolic capital for the respectiveauditors. These strategies take the form of practical coping mechanisms – purposive, pragmaticaction aimed at resolving an immediate impediment at hand rather than some grand, overallpurposeful scheme. Three important practical gambits used in both cases, although differentlypursued, were:

Conscious ingratiation;

Sanctioning; and

Appeals to fairness, a key doxic notion in both fields.

Despite inhabiting similar roles, the appointed auditors are shown to possess markedly differentbackgrounds and employ different resources, tactics and dispositions to impose themselves intheir roles. In the NRL case, the selection and positioning of the auditor was importantlyinfluenced by a drawn out ownership battle that led to deep antagonism and mistrust betweenfactions of the game’s administration. Several interviewees talked about the premium placed onthe social capital and commitment of an ‘insider’ who was widely known and respected withinrugby league circles. In the CFL case, the salary cap auditor appointment was made amidongoing concerns about the financial viability of the league. This conferred significant value oncultural capital relating to financial management, particularly in the skills attached to forensicaccounting expertise.